Critical Response: X. The Death of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ (632 AD) 

The Final Chapter of the Prophet – A Historical and Theological Analysis

Introduction: Reverent Storytelling vs. Critical History

The narrative presented regarding the death of Muhammad is emotive, meticulously detailed, and anchored in traditional Islamic sources. However, it must be underscored that this account is entirely faith-based. It draws from canonical Sunni hadith, Qur’anic verses interpreted through theological consensus, and early Islamic historiography such as Ibn Ishaq, al-Bukhari, and Muslim. These sources, revered by Muslims, are accepted as authoritative within Islam—but outside the faith, their historical reliability must be critically evaluated.

The central issue is this: Can these events be confirmed as historical facts, or are they religiously constructed narratives meant to inspire faith and unity in the early Muslim community? When examined under critical standards of historiography, several concerns emerge.

A. The Prophet’s Final Illness: Faith-Driven Attribution, Not Medical Certainty

The idea that Muhammad’s illness may have stemmed from the alleged poisoning at Khaybar is found in Sahih al-Bukhari 4428 and is frequently cited in hagiographic biographies. However, this claim raises several issues:

  • Chronological implausibility: The poisoning at Khaybar is said to have occurred in 628 AD, four years before his death. The notion of a “slow-acting poison” causing death years later is not supported by any medical understanding and appears to serve a theological purpose: martyrdom.

  • Lack of empirical verification: We have no independent corroboration or medical records. What we have are pious narratives shaped decades later—many transmitted orally and only compiled into canonical form well after Muhammad’s death.

In sum, the “cause” of death—poison, divine will, or natural illness—remains uncertain and unverifiable. But within the Islamic framework, its theological utility far outweighs its historical plausibility.

B. Appointing Abu Bakr: Historical Omission or Political Craft?

The selection of Abu Bakr as the one to lead prayers is often cited as a tacit endorsement of his succession. But several critical problems surface here:

  1. No explicit designation: Nowhere does Muhammad say, “Abu Bakr will succeed me.” The assumption that leading prayer equals political succession is not a self-evident rule—it is a post-hoc justification constructed by later Sunni historiography.

  2. Shia Counterpoint: Shia sources strongly dispute this interpretation, holding that ʿAlī was divinely appointed at Ghadir Khumm. This raises a profound question: If Muhammad truly appointed a successor, why is the Islamic world still divided over it fourteen centuries later?

  3. Historical contradiction: The very need for a heated debate at Saqīfah (see section G) contradicts the idea of a “clear designation.” If the Prophet had truly left no doubt, why was succession such a crisis?

Conclusion: This episode may reflect a theological rationalization to legitimize Abu Bakr's leadership, rather than a historically decisive appointment.

C. The “Farewell Glimpse”: A Literary Closure or a Real Event?

The narrative of Muhammad drawing back the curtain and smiling at his followers offers poetic closure—but from a critical perspective, it bears resemblance to hagiographic tropes common in sacred biographies:

  • Idealized farewell: Similar to the deaths of other revered religious leaders (e.g., Moses or Buddha), it emphasizes composure, vision, and satisfaction.

  • Unverifiable report: This story, like much of the sīrah literature, comes from later compilations without contemporaneous corroboration.

Rather than being a documented historical fact, this account seems to serve a literary and theological function: a symbolic passing of the torch.

D. The Prophet’s Death and “Choosing the Highest Companion”

The Prophet’s last words, “al-rafīq al-aʿlā” (“the Highest Companion”), are often interpreted as a reference to God or the heavenly realm. But several problems arise:

  1. No external corroboration: No independent accounts outside Islamic tradition confirm these words were uttered.

  2. Theological consistency: The statement neatly supports the Qur’anic worldview (e.g., Qur’an 4:69)—making it convenient as a didactic summation, not necessarily a historical fact.

  3. Narrative stylization: Such literary death scenes are common in religious literature. The phrase functions more like a final benediction crafted by early transmitters of hadith than a documented utterance.

E. Public Reaction: Real Shock or Scripted Drama?

The account of ʿUmar denying the Prophet’s death, and Abu Bakr calming the people with a verse (Qur’an 3:144), is one of the most repeated moments in Islamic memory. But from a critical standpoint:

  • Theatrical symmetry: The drama, disbelief, and eventual resolution offer a powerful example of early Islamic rhetorical framing. It serves to validate Abu Bakr’s calm authority in contrast to ʿUmar’s emotional outburst.

  • Questionable historicity: There is no evidence outside of hadith literature for this moment. Its narrative function is clear: solidify Abu Bakr’s leadership and set the tone for post-Muhammad Islam.

  • Implanted Qur’anic fulfillment: The use of 3:144 seems almost too perfect for the moment—it reads like a scripted fulfillment rather than an organic utterance.

F. The Burial and the Silent Imām

The burial in ʿĀ’ishah’s house, without a central prayer leader, and with a unique style (laḥd), are often framed as symbolic acts of reverence. Yet critically:

  • Why no clear instructions from Muhammad? For a prophet who gave minute instructions on prayer and ritual, it is curious that he left no definitive burial rites or successor instructions.

  • Ambiguity reinforces fragmentation: This silence—if real—was catastrophic. It opened the door to sectarian disputes that continue today.

Rather than viewing the Prophet’s silence as wisdom, it might better be seen as either a failure of leadership at a crucial moment or a later myth meant to neutralize the divisiveness of early political schisms.

G. The Saqīfah Meeting: Consensus or Power Grab?

The Saqīfah episode is one of the most critical junctures in Islamic history. And yet, it starkly contradicts the image of a peaceful prophetic transition:

  • Disunity from day one: The meeting was tense. The Ansar and Muhajirun were divided. ʿUmar is said to have quickly pledged to Abu Bakr and pressured others to follow—hardly a peaceful, agreed-upon process.

  • ʿAlī's absence: ʿAlī and the Banu Hāshim were notably absent from this event, attending instead to the burial. This detail, noted even in Sunni sources (e.g., Tarikh al-Tabari), undermines claims of unity.

  • Posthumous legitimacy: The retrospective framing of this event as divine wisdom masks what was, in all likelihood, a political negotiation, not a theological inevitability.

H. Theology in the Service of Stability

The section interprets Muhammad’s death as affirming key Islamic principles: his humanity, the completion of revelation, and the endurance of the message. These are, however, post-death theological constructs, not historical conclusions.

  • There is no reason to assume—apart from doctrinal commitment—that revelation ended simply because Muhammad died.

  • The very idea of “Seal of the Prophets” (Qur’an 33:40) is vague, and debated in meaning until it was doctrinally fixed.

  • It is more accurate to say the early Muslim community constructed theological meaning around Muhammad’s death to maintain coherence and obedience.

I. The Legacy: Book, Way, and Ummah – or Myth, Law, and Empire?

While Muslims believe Muhammad left behind a “Book, a Way, and a Community,” this is itself a theological summary, not a historical outcome:

  • The Qur’an was not fully compiled until years later, under Uthman (see Sahih al-Bukhari 4987), raising questions about preservation and transmission.

  • The Sunnah as we have it was not systematically recorded until generations later—raising concerns of fabrication, bias, and projection of later norms onto Muhammad.

  • The Ummah fragmented almost immediately—between Sunni, Shia, Khawarij, and later sects—undermining claims of early unity.

Conclusion: Prophet’s Death or Beginning of Myth-Making?

The traditional Islamic account of Muhammad’s death is internally coherent, spiritually resonant, and emotionally compelling—but it rests entirely within faith-based, post-event literature. From a critical standpoint, it must be seen as the theological closure of the prophetic era, constructed by early Muslim elites to transition from revelation to rulership.

It also highlights how the absence of clear succession, the lack of an authenticated deathbed directive, and the later canonization of hadith were instrumental in shaping Islamic orthodoxy—not as preserved truths, but as curated memory.

Final Note to Readers:

If you believe that the critical representation above misrepresents Islamic claims, we encourage you to respond with verifiable evidence. Specifically, provide:

  • Contemporaneous sources, not oral traditions collected generations later;

  • Logical rebuttals to the points raised;

  • Qur’anic verses or hadith that are not merely theological assertions but can withstand historical scrutiny.

The goal here is not mockery, but rigorous analysis. Only through honest engagement with Islam's own foundations can its historical and theological claims be fairly tested.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Problematic Elevation of Hadith Over the Qur’an: A Critical Polemic Response to “Why Do Islamic Scholars Sometimes Prioritize Hadith Over Qur’anic Verses?” Introduction: The Qur’an or the Hadith — Which Truly Commands Authority? Islamic scholarship claims the Qur’an is the ultimate, unaltered word of God. Yet, the very same scholars often insist that hadith—the human-recorded sayings and actions of Muhammad—sometimes override or clarify the Qur’an itself. This contradictory stance raises serious questions about textual integrity, theological consistency, and the real source of Islamic law and morality. If the Qur’an is “the Book about which there is no doubt” (Qur’an 2:2), why do we find thousands of rulings and laws being sourced primarily from hadith, often at the expense of clear Qur’anic principles? This post critically examines the logic, consequences, and hidden assumptions behind this practice. 1. The Qur’an’s Primacy Is Undermined by Overreliance on Hadith While t...
Read more
The Line of Prophets – A Continuation of the Message Isa (Jesus) – The Honored Messiah and Servant of Allah In the Islamic tradition, few prophets occupy as revered and central a place as ʿĪsā ibn Maryam (Jesus, son of Mary) . He is one of the five Ulū al-ʿAzm — the elite messengers distinguished for their endurance and unwavering resolve — along with Nūḥ, Ibrāhīm, Mūsā, and Muḥammad (peace be upon them all). His life, miracles, and eschatological role are discussed across over ninety verses in fifteen different surahs of the Qur’an, and he is referred to by name twenty-five times. Islam presents ʿĪsā not as divine, nor as the Son of God, but as a messenger of Allah , a spirit from Him (rūḥ minhu) , and His word cast upon Mary (kalimatuhu alqāhā ilā Maryam) . He was sent specifically to Banī Isrāʾīl (the Children of Israel) to revive the message of pure tawḥīd (monotheism), to confirm the Torah, and to deliver the Injīl , a scripture filled with light and guidance. A Miraculo...
Read more
  Before Islam: Decoding the Earliest Sources on Muhammad’s Movement Islamic tradition paints a vivid picture: in 610 CE, Muhammad received divine revelations in a Meccan cave, birthing Islam—a fully formed monotheistic faith with scripture, rituals, and law. Yet, the earliest non-Muslim records—Syriac, Greek, and Armenian chronicles from the 7th century—tell a starkly different story. They mention no “Islam,” no “Qur’an,” and no prophet preaching a new creed. Instead, Muhammad’s followers appear as “Hagarenes,” “Ishmaelites,” or “Saracens”—vague monotheists or tribal raiders acting under divine sanction. This evidence challenges the claim of a coherent religion descending from heaven, suggesting a fluid insurgency later mythologized into divine revelation by Abbasid scholars. This post dives into these sources, their context, and their implications, testing Islam’s narrative against the Qur’an’s own standards—proof ( Surah 2:111 ) and consistency ( Surah 4:82 ). The Islamic Narrat...
Read more